by David Barton, WallBuilders

Article originally published at www.WallBuilders.com 

*reposted with permission

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, ¹ repeated it as a presidential candidate, ² and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” ³ (Why did he make that announcement in Turkey? Because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” ⁴ )

The President’s statement, delivered in a Muslim nation and to Muslim press, received little coverage in American media. Had it been publicized here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation ⁵ and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statement.

Modern declarations that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and are only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. ⁶

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” ⁷

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. ⁸

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. ⁹

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

• A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
• The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
• Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
• A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
• A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations ¹⁰ but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

With his recent statement, President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. ¹¹JOHN ADAMS

[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. ¹² TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. ¹³WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. ¹⁴ HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation. ¹⁵ HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. ¹⁶ RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, ¹⁷ not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church. ¹⁸

(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. ¹⁹ While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” ²⁰ )

Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. ²¹

President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).

 

Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. ²² 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? ²³

In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

[T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ²⁴

On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation” ²⁵ because:

 

[S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. ²⁶(emphasis added)

President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, ²⁷ and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history. ²⁸

Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court ²⁹ and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

 

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. ³⁰

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. ³¹

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

 

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. ³²

Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. ³³

Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

 

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” ³⁴

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. ³⁵

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. ³⁶

There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” ³⁷filled with “Christian people,” ³⁸ and was indeed “a Christian nation.” ³⁹Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements ⁴⁰ but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. ⁴¹

In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. ⁴²

In another case, the Court similarly explained:

The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. ⁴³

And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” ⁴⁴

The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. ⁴⁵

The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . . The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. ⁴⁶

For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, ⁴⁷ across India, ⁴⁸ Pakistan,⁴⁹ Saudi Arabia, ⁵⁰ Malaysia, ⁵¹ and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. ⁵²

The Supreme Court commended this position ⁵³ and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, ⁵⁴ when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” ⁵⁵

Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ⁵⁶

The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

[I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. . . . Thus. . . . “It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ” ⁵⁷

The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, ⁵⁸ and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position ⁵⁹ – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, ⁶⁰ including in the late 1990s. ⁶¹

These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation.

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history. ⁶²

Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with. ⁶³

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.⁶⁴

Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. ⁶⁵

Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. ⁶⁶The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here. ⁶⁷

In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America. ⁶⁸

Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation. ⁶⁹

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. ⁷⁰

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. ⁷¹

In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. ⁷²God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! ⁷³

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —

President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” ⁷⁴

Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

---

Endnotes
 Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” June 22, 2008,WorldNetDaily (at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735).(Return)

 

 

 David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007 (at:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/204017.aspx).(Return)

 “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

 “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

 “Survey Reports: Beyond Red vs. Blue,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, March 17-27, 2005 (at: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=953), reports that in 1996, 60% of Americans believed that America was indeed a Christian nation and that by 2004, the number had risen to 71%; the 2009 poll showed that the number had dropped to 69% and then to 62% (see “Newsweek Poll: A Post-Christian Nation?,” Newsweek, April 3, 2009 (at:http://www.newsweek.com/id/192311), in which 62% answered Yes, 32% answer No, and 6% answered Don’t Know to the question “Do you consider the United States a Christian nation, or not?” See also “This Easter, Smaller Percentage of Americans are Christians,” Gallup, April 10, 2009 (at:http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/Easter-Smaller-Percentage-Americans-Christian.aspx), in which this statement appears: “The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian,” according to this poll 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (55% Protestant, 22% Catholic). (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 13. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 40. (Return)

 Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), p. 43. (Return)

 John Marshall, The Papers of John Marshall, Charles Hobson, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), Vol. XII, p. 278, to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833. (Return)

 Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), pp. 11-12, Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442. (Return)

 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. (Return)

 Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, D.D., Theodore Roosevelt, The Man As I Knew Him (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919), p. 307. (Return)

 Paul M. Pearson and Philip M. Hicks, Extemporaneous Speaking (New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1912), 177, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress;” The Homiletic Review: An International Monthly Magazine of Current Religious Thought, Sermonic Literature and Discussion of Practical Issues (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1911), Vol. LXII, p. 238, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress,” May 7, 1911. (Return)

 Herbert Hoover, “Radio Address to the Nation on Unemployment Relief,”American Presidency Project, October 18, 1931 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22855).(Return)

 Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages With Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 28, 1947 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12746).(Return)

 Richard Nixon, “Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast,” American Presidency Project, February 1st, 1972 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3597).(Return)

 See, for example, Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives; The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), p. 13; William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 119, to Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803, and p. 113, his entry of December 12, 1802; James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 84. (Return)

 William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114). (Return)

 See, for example, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U.S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 518-520 (S.C. 1846); State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214, 1854 WL 4543 (Mo. 1854); Neal v. Crew, 12 Ga. 93, 1852 WL 1390 (1852); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 71 A.2d 732, 7 N.J. Super. 442 (1950); State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 143 S.W. 785, 803 (Mo. 1912); and many others. (Return)

 Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, 509 (1858). (Return)

 Hutson, Religion, p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen. (Return)

 Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6, 8. (Return)

 The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), p. 3. (Return)

 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States: Being the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress (Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), p. 354, January 23, 1856. See also Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856), p. 35. (Return)

 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), p. 379, March 2, 1863. (Return)

 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), pp. 378-379, March 2, 1863. (Return)

 Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. VI, pp. 155-157, “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day,” March 30, 1863.(Return)

 A May 2009 Google search for this proclamation resulted in 18,000+ hits.(Return)

 “United States Founding Fathers,” Party of 1776 (at:http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/contents.html) (accessed on May 1, 2009). (Return)

 Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, pp. 8, 92. (Return)

 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States(Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, p. 724, § 1867. (Return)

 B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic(Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 639. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 12. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 40, 46. (Return)

 “Breakfast in Washington,” Time, February 15, 1954 (at:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936197,00.html).(Return)

 Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 126, 198 (1844). (Return)

 U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

 Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).(Return)

 See for example, Warren v. U.S., 177 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1949); U.S. v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760 (1st Cir.1945); Steiner v. Darby, Parker v. Los Angeles County, 199 P.2d 429 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 1948); Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 434 P.2d 961 (1967). (Return)

 Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages with Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 6, 1947 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12746).(Return)

 Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 341-344, 348 n. (1890). (Return)

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890). (Return)

 U.S. ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927 (E.D. La. 1925). (Return)

 U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 463 (1891). (Return)

 Patrick Goodenough, “French Anti-Sect Law: Christian Lawyers Prepare for Action,” Center for Studies on New Religions, June 4, 2001 (at:http://www.cesnur.org/2001/fr_june01.htm).(Return)

 “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Takes Effect in Fifth State,” WorthyNews, May 2, 2008 (at: http://www.worthynews.com/1641-india-anti-conversion-law-takes-effect-in-fifth-state). See also “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Considered in Karnataka,” Compass Direct News, March 2, 2009 (at:http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news〈=en=long&idelement=5829). Seven of India’s 28 states have passed an anti-conversion law (which has been implemented in 5) and one additional state has a law in process that has not yet been passed. (Return)

 “Congressional Hearings on Anti-Conversion Laws this Friday,” Free Copts, April 6, 2006 (at: http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70).(Return)

 Jerry Dykstra “A Leader in Religious Intolerance: In Saudi Arabia, conversion to Christianity is punishable by death,” Today’s Christian, July 1, 2006 (at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/004/11.53.html).(Return)

 Jane Perlez “Once Muslim, Now Christian and Caught in the Courts,” New York Times, August 24, 2006 (at:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/asia/24malaysia.html?ex=1157083200&en=48413500adb50796&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS).(Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). (Return)

 See, for example, Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). (Return)

 See, for example, U.S. v. Best, 76 F. Supp. 857 (D. Mass. 1948); U.S. v. Robertson, Court of Military Appeals (May 27, 1955); U.S. v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13805 (D. Berlin Mar. 14, 1979); and many others.(Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 480 (1891). (Return)

 Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, 525 (1877). (Return)

 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 (1903). See also the same language in Yankton Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U. S., 272 US 351 (1926); U. S. v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494 (1900); Atlantic & P R Co v. Mingus, 165 U.S. 413 (1897); Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114 (1894); Buttz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 U.S. 55 (1886). (Return)

 “Act of April 26, 1906, Public Number 129,” Access Genealogy Indian Tribal Records (at:http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/laws/act_april_26_1906.htm) (accessed May 4, 2009). (Return)

 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). (Return)

 Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 146 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. Cl. Nov. 7, 1956);Seminole Nation v. White, 224 F.2d 173 (10th Cir. 1955); U.S. v. Drumb, 152 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1946); Appeal of Brunt, 5 B.T.A. 134, 1926 WL 47 (October 21, 1926); Parr v. U.S., 153 F. 462 (D. Or. 1907). (Return)

 Cohen v. Little Six, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. App. 1996). (Return)

 Jeff Jacoby, “The freedom not to say ‘amen’,” Jewish World Review, February 1, 2001 (at:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby020101.asp).(Return)

 Aaron Zelman, “An open letter to my Christian friends,” Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (at: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/christian-selfdefense.htm).(Return)

 Dennis Prager, “America founded to be free, not secular,” Townhall.com, January 3, 2007 (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/01/03/america_founded_to_be_free,_not_secular).(Return)

 Dennis Prager, “Books, Arts & Manners: God & His Enemies – Revie,”BNet, March 22, 1999 (at:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_5_51/ai_54022321).(Return)

 Don Feder, A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), pp. 59-60. (Return)

 Don Feder, “Yes – Once and For All – American is a Christian Nation,”DonFeder.com, February 16, 2005 (at:www.donfeder.com/articles/0502chrisAmerica.pdf).(Return)

 Don Feder, “The Jewish Case for Merry Christmas,” DonFeder.com, December 5, 2006 (at:www.donfeder.com/articles/0612jewishCase.pdf).(Return)

 Michael Medved, “The Founders Intended a Christian, not Secular, Society,” Townhall.com, October 3, 2007 (at:http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/03/the_founders_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society).(Return)

 Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas,” Townhall.com, December 11, 2006 (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2006/12/11/the_jewish_grinch_who_stole_christmas).(Return)

 Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999), p. 116. (Return)

 Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “A Rabbi’s Call to American Christians – Wake Up! You’re Under Attack,” End Time Prophetic Division, January 19, 2007 (at:http://www.etpv.org/2007/acwuyua.html).(Return)

 Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “Which Jews does the ADL really represent?”WorldNetDaily, August 25, 2006 (at:http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51671).(Return)

 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 106-107 (1984), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting). (Return)

By Jason Georges, Executive Director of The Bible Nation Society

BNS:  What worldview, in your opinion, influenced the thinking of the founding fathers?

I think the first thing to keep in mind is the founding fathers were not a monolithic  group.   They didn’t come out of the same religious tradition, or the same political, or regional backgrounds.  They came from different parts of the country with different interests, different professional backgrounds.  And they were influenced by a variety of worldviews, perspectives, and the like.  Clearly they lived in a Biblically-literate culture.  Christianity was, I would say, probably the most dominant cultural influence.  But they were also being influenced by other ideas, some of which are coming from the other side of the Atlantic.  Some of them, a small number of them, were being influenced by Enlightenment ideals, or the ideas of classical Republicanism, Whig political tradition.  So, they were influenced by a variety of perspectives.  But I think most of them are going to be viewing these different perspectives largely through a Christian lens.

BNS:  Did our founding fathers reference the Bible from a personal knowledge and interest, or was it a political thing to do at the time?

I think that’s a very good question because it really gets to the heart of what I think is one of the most important questions when talking about the Bible in the American founding, and that is for what purposes did this generation use the Bible?  Now the truth of the matter is they used the Bible for a whole variety of reasons, depending on the context, or the time at which they used the Bible.  There are times they used the Bible for purely literary allusions.  They are trying to pick examples from history, from literature, that their audience will know and understand.  And the Bible would have been one of the major sources for that kind of literary allusion.  Sometimes they would have used the Bible for rhetorical effect.  The language of the Bible, especially the King James Bible, carries with it a certain authority, a certain seriousness.  And so, occasionally you’d find this generation using the Bible, or Bible-like language, to convey that kind of authority or seriousness, or to bring solemnity to a particular discourse.  There are other times when you’re going to find them using the Bible to paint a parallel between their own experience and perhaps the experience of the children of Israel as described in the Old Testament.  Other times they use the Bible to make theological points about who is God, the nature of God, and most especially from their perspective how God deals with human beings in the here and now.  So, you find this generation using the Bible for a lot of different reasons, a lot of different purposes.  You have to read this literature in its context.  I don’t think we can make a generalized statement about why they used the Bible, but understand they used the Bible for a variety of reasons and we have to read each example in its context to understand and appreciate why they’re using the Bible.

BNS:  Does one historical figure come to mind where you would say he had an adamant Biblical worldview, even almost ignoring any other influence?

There were certainly founding fathers who are very devout and pious Christians, who want to reflect that piety in all their actions including their involvement in politics.  I would identify people like John Jay, first chief justice of the United States and one of the co-authors of the Federalist Papers.  I would also include Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot president of the Continental Congress, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman two men that came out of the state of Connecticut.  Roger Sherman is very much involved in the founding of the American republic.  He was one of only two men to sign three organic expressions of American law:  the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution.  Sherman was a member of the first congress involved in framing the first amendment.  Someone else that I would include is someone like John Witherspoon, leader of the Presbyterian community in the United States, also very involved in politics.  He sat on over one hundred communities in the continental congress, president of what was then called the College of New Jersey, today known as Princeton.  A very devout man who brought his faith with him into the public realm.

BNS:  Did Thomas Jefferson intend for any reference to religion to be excluded from all public discourse when he used the metaphor ‘wall of separation’?

Well, I think the wall of separation metaphor is used today in ways that Jefferson probably would not recognize and might even repudiate.  Looking at his record as a public official I think we would have to conclude that Jefferson did not mean and did not intend to exclude all references to religion and even references to God from public life.  Jefferson himself in numerous public statements made references to God.  You might want to look at what today we call the state of the union address, in his annual messages to Congress he would frequently make references to God and our need to be thankful to God.  Now I wouldn’t suggest that Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian necessarily, but I don’t think he intended to exclude religion and religious expressions from all aspects of public life.

BNS:  In your opinion, what are the dangers of a Bible-illiterate society?

I think that to the extent that many of our expressions, many of our idioms, our manners of communicating with each other are based on ideas, concepts, and allusions to the Bible.  I think it hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  If you take a common expression like, ‘lion’s den’, or ‘Damascus road experience’, or ‘handwriting on the wall’, or ‘forbidden fruit’, the kinds of expression that work their way into popular discourse, if you lack or lose knowledge where these phrases come from it really hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  So, to that extent I think it’s useful, valuable, to be literate in the Bible and how the Bible has informed our culture and in our manner of expression and speaking to one another.

BNS:  What, if any, major events in history participated in the decline of Bible literacy? 

I think there have been certain forces of modernity, perhaps, in the last several hundred years that have emphasized the rational over the transcendent, that have wanted to marginalize matters of faith, to privatize matters of faith.  We see this not only in political ideas but we see it in decisions of our courts, limiting the expression of our religiosity in the public square, those kinds of things.  I think to some extent that has had an impact on the ability of traditional Christianity and Biblical faith in particular to influence the broader culture.

Professor Dreisbach’s principal research interests include American constitutional law and history, First Amendment law, church-state relations, and criminal procedure. He has written extensively on these topics. He has authored or edited five books and numerous articles in scholarly journals. Among the courses that Professor Dreisbach teaches are American Legal Culture, Issues in Civil Justice, Civil Justice Systems and the Constitution, and The Constitution and Criminal Procedure. 

By Dr. Douglas F. Levesque, Founder of The Levesque Institute

While Bible advocates are admonished in Scripture to be good citizens, and pray for their civil authorities, there are equally as many pervasive admonitions given to those same authorities.  In the United States of America such authority has always had this Biblical connotation of ‘public servant’.  When our leaders fail they are subject to public scrutiny.  When they purposely depart from proven, established and principled processes of governance they must also be subject to the critical eye from those they serve and represent.

Should we allow our executive to single handedly change our capital system of economics to the current Euro-centric, Hyper-feudalistic model?  Is our President allowed to ‘own it all’?

Imagine this headline “Executive Branch uses Murder to Cover-Up Private Property Seizure.”  Such a news story would be scandalous indeed; hearings would be started, impeachment would be called for, the courts would be convened, and confidence in government would falter.  Such a news story may not be so far-fetched if the Constitution and free markets are killed in order to gain control over the wealth and assets of the citizenry.

Today, our Bible based economic heritage is being pulled up from underneath us.  If only the Scripture had insight to offer us in this matter.

Evil Intentions

Modern day administrations are not the only ones with questionable motives.  Ancient Israeli King Ahab (874-853 B.C.) felt he needed a particular parcel of land for a certain use, and in a certain proximity to his seat of government.  The offer to swap parcels or purchase for cash was made to the owner, Naboth.  He refused the kingly authority based upon several reasons. First, the land was a family inheritance.  It was his economic heritage, and was not for sale.  Second, the parcel was a working vineyard, and no doubt a profitable one.  The practicality of its use was immeasurable to Naboth.  And lastly, it was personally owned, and therefore within the will of the owner to keep or dispose with at his leisure.  Ahab was bothered by the refusal.  His queen and powerful aide, Jezebel, determined to acquire the property with an evil plan. 

The present day lust for power, and evil inspired designs to steal our economic heritage may also be resisted.  However, the consequences for Naboth were dire.

Abuse of Power

Naboth was singled out for ‘recognition’, put in the spotlight, then falsely accused.  A false trial and illegitimate execution led to the death of the “capitalist”.  His property was then seized and given to the king.  Ahab had plausible deniability before his constituency, but not before Almighty God.  I Kings chapter 21, tells of the Lord’s response through Elijah the prophet, “Thou has sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the LORD.”, and, “thou hast provoked me to anger and made Israel to sin.” (verse 20 & 22).

“Thou shalt not covet, steal and kill” remain as pillars of the law and part of ‘the Ten Commandments’.  These are personal codes as well as national ones.  They apply to citizens and kings, business owners and presidents.  Though power is often abused, it is never without notice by our just lawgiver and divine purveyor of justice.

Opportunity to Do Right

King Ahab could not reverse the damage, but he did, “rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly.”  God saw his repentance and spared his life, but did not spare his progeny.  II Kings chapters 9 and 10 tell of the ironic way in which Ahab’s son was killed and buried on the very parcel of land that was stolen. His son in law, plus 70 of his offspring were killed by a vengeful king Jehu who remembered the whole bloody theft from Naboth.

There is still an opportunity for our leadership to do the right thing.  Return to a just free market and unpunished property ownership.  If they do, perhaps mercy will be the order of the day; if not, justice will surely follow them into future generations.  Let us pray that the unique economic attributes God has allowed us to prosper under may continue.

By Dr. Douglas F. Levesque, Founder of The Levesque Institute 

The Biblical world view naturally held by America’s founders, and so successfully ingrained in the national psyche in succeeding generations, is a national phenomenon unparalleled in history.  Such a pervasive viewpoint fueled America’s decision making and action taking for centuries.  It is the not-so-secret reason behind the United States meteoric  rise to superpower status, economically and militarily.  It is also the rationale that put the U.S. in support of Israel’s right to exist as an independent nation state.  Does not the Scripture endorse Israel as a nation, and one beloved of God at that?  Do we not see ourselves the same way?  Surely we are akin to such an idea of ordained nationhood?  For sixty years America has backed this point of view with diplomacy, foreign aid, military alliance, and sometimes . . . a blind eye.  The relationship between the two nations has been give and take, but also one of frustration and disappointment.  With both nations preparing to be led by new and differing governments, with manifold forces intent on severing the bond at any cost, with a nuclear Iran on the immediate horizon, how are we to behave now toward our tempermental ally?  The character of Israel and America is being put to the test.  An understanding of one another is vital now more than ever.

Israel Wrestles With God

The Biblical promises made to Abraham, and renewed through Isaac, began to materialize through the patriarch Jacob.  In fact, it was he who was called “Israel” by the Almighty.  His unique personality and situation are a key to understanding the nation and mindset of Israel today.  With a name meaning ’supplanter’ or ‘trickster’,  Jacob has set the pace for what others think of him.  He tricked his father, ’stole’ his brother’s birthright, exploited his position and contract with his father in law, then encountered some of the same traits among his twelve sons.  It is this same “Israel”  who, when encountering the Angel of the LORD, wrestled with him, and would not let him go.  Perhaps Jacob’s sense of promise, passed on no doubt from grandfather and father, made him justify what we deem a flaw in his character.  Who was he to be so familiar with God?  What made him think that he should win at any price? Why was he compelled to succeed at his own friends and families expense?  The same questions that perplexed Jacob about his own identity,  perplex the modern day Israel still.  And yet, they wrestle with God.  They continually fall short of yielding to the will of God, but then again, so does the United States.  Can we accept that?  Do we understand that?  Can America be faithful in a high stakes marriage with Israel that is like a partnership between the Kings daughter and the Kings friend?  Both have much to gain and much to lose.  Both have a character they believe to be chosen, destined, and promised, yet are intertwined with God in a wrestling match that they cannot win, but dare not give up on.

Israel Wants Divine Blessing

Everyone wants to have a sense of spiritual or universal mandate.  Even imperialists and secularists talk of higher consciousness.  The Muslim Mullahs feel compelled to conquest, and the Catholic Cardinals claim a destiny to rule.  Israel, like Jacob, wants desperately to get “its’” blessing from God.  After all, they are children of promise.  The Biblical framework has Jacob (”Israel”) preparing to meet Esau, whom he had previously defrauded, and from whom he now fears annihilation.  While prayerfully waiting for this meeting, the LORD shows up and engages Jacob in hand to hand combat.  Of course, such a meeting is always a one sided affair unless God’s intention is not to destroy, but to direct.  When Jacob realizes who he is face to face with, his defensive posture turns into an all out press to grab hold of God and not let Him go.  The LORD finally ends the confrontation with Jacob getting an answer to his prayer, although not in words, but in a real sense of assurance, and a successful meeting with Esau.  Today, Israel is in real and surreal ways, reaching for Divine fulfillment of it’s national potential.  Can anyone blame them?  America has a similar sense of needing God’s hand.  In fact, the very reason Americans support Israel is to capture God’s favor and blessing for doing so.  Israel sometimes takes advantage of this reality.  Let us hope there is a reciprocal understanding of each others motives and intentions.  Jacob’s character was enhanced by striving after Divine blessing.

Israel Walks with a Limp

As a permanent reminder of the special meeting with God, Jacob was “touched” in his thigh and so walked with a limp throughout his days.  Israel continues to be hobbled by their special relationship to God, and their place of favour in the Bible.  It is meant to direct them and keep them reliant upon the Almighty as opposed to political allies, military prowess or Mossad intrigue.  At times, the limp seems to make them an easy target, or a weak competitor, but make no mistake, that same limp is a mark of survival from a meaningful scuffle with the LORD himself.  If Israel walks different from us it is because it has to walk at it’s own pace, and often by itself.  A golden ally will be cognizant of these integral character traits, and strive to be a friend at all times.  Israel, likewise, should be patient, explanatory, and appreciative of The United States role and desire to be a partner in equitable national efforts to please the LORD.

By James Demis C.P.A.,  Bible Nation Society Board Member

The book of II Chronicles, among other things, relates the actions of various kings of Israel and Judah.  The following is a list of kings. Just like any list of leadership in nations, there were good, bad and mixed leaders. In the secular worlds, good leaders are primarily known as leaders that got their nations through tough times, both economically and militarily. They may also have pursued agenda’s of grandeur or destruction.

Chronicles shows clearly that the nature of the leader’s walk with God, affects the people of the nation. Other books of the bible do this also, from Moses and the Jewish people in Genesis to the Anti-Christ and his followers in Revelation. But no one book describes this relationship more clearly than II Chronicles.

Chronicles often uses phrases, such as “…did that which was right…”, and “…did that which was evil in sight of the Lord.” to describe these men.  Often the King did what was right by changing something that displeased God, or vise versa. But you will note, that the people of the nation under the king were blessed by God or suffered, paralleling the leader’s relationship with God.

 Chronicles, however, doesn’t use the King’s relationship with the people as the yardstick for good. The yardstick was the King’s relationship to God. In modern times, Israel is probably the best example of how God can bless an entire nation. The Abrahamic covenant, of course, is part of this protection, but good leadership is also a part of this protection.  Their leaders not only have a higher moral value system than their neighbors, their neighbors, but prayer is a continual part of their deliberations. Israel’s existence, against all odds, is a testimony of Godly leadership.

We have many critical elections in our future.   This article is not to tell you how to vote. However, there are two essential elements to your vote, one is voting for those that do not merely espouse Christian beliefs, but advocate laws and policies beliefs, but advocate laws and policies consistent with biblical principles. The only way for voters to know biblical principles is through Bible reading and meditation.

The other is through prayer. II Chronicles details how through asking God his will, our leaders can bestow God’s blessing on our nation. We need to collectively pray for such a leader.

By Dr. Rick Flanders

A great man once said that most Christians are so subnormal that when some rise to the normal, they are considered supernormal!  Here is the problem we face.  Worldliness, carnality, and indifference have become so much the usual condition of Christians that passion, power, and purity seem extraordinary!  Let us recognize that Bible Christianity is a very powerful thing whenever and wherever it is lived out.  Sadly, we have so seldomly seen it that men are persuaded that it is beyond the normal.  Yet effective evangelism, abiding peace, Spirit enablement, as well as severe persecution are the norm for the Christian life.  Our unbiblical conception of revival points to our great need for it!

 A third strange and incorrect idea that we often hear is that revival must meet certain historical criteria to be correctly called “revival.”  It is amazing how unscriptural are the requirements some believers set for revival! 

The number of conversions, the endurance of the converts, the effects on society, and unusual phenomena are all considered when critics decide whether or not a religious occurrence is a “revival.”  But a revival is not in closed taverns, reduced crime, strange experiences, massive numbers, or church harmony.  It is in believers turning back to a life surrendered to God!  When God revives His people, their witness for Christ has new power, but the specific effects of that power may not match exactly the effects of other revivals in the past.

The second chapter of Acts says that Peter and the congregation at Jerusalem were “filled with the Holy Ghost” (v. 4) and spoke the Word of God in His power.  They were in a state of revival.  As a result, those who heard their witness to the resurrection of Christ “were pricked in their heart” (v. 37) and repented.  Some three thousand were saved and baptized as a result of the revival on that Day of Pentecost (v. 41).

The seventh chapter of Acts tells about the deacon, Stephen, who was “full of the Holy Ghost” (v. 55).  He was in a state of revival, and as he witnessed for Christ before the council of men that had arranged for the Lord’s crucifixion, the power of God brought conviction.  “They were cut to the heart,” the Bible says (v. 54), but the result was rage, not conversion.  These sinful men “ran upon him [Stephen] . . . and cast him out of the city” (vv. 57-58).  There they stoned the deacon to death.  But let us note that there was a state of revival in the Christian of Acts 7 just as surely as there was such a state among the Christians in Acts 2!  The revival was in the hearts of the believers, and the expected blessing of convicting power did come in both cases.  Yet in one situation, a multitude was immediately converted, and in the other, the believer was murdered (although fruit was indeed produced through the eventual conversion of Saul-Acts 7:58 and 9:3-6).  The particulars were different because they were incidentals, not essentials.  Essentially, revival was the same in Acts 2 and 7.  In the Bible we are instructed accurately about revival, but that is not always so in history books!

Revival is God’s bringing us back to normal!  Mr. Finney said, “[A revival] is the renewal of the first love of Christians, resulting in the awakening and conversion of sinners to God.”1  Bill Rice III says that revival is a return to Bible principle.  Vance Havner defined revival as Christians returning to normal.

Revival is also predictable.  It can be expected when it is sought on the basis of God’s Word.  Judges 10 shows us that we can expect revival in response to our repentance because of the very nature of the heart of God!  “His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.”  Something in God moves when men move toward Him.

The aspect of God’s nature that responds to man’s repentance is His mercy.  The great revival Psalm, number 85, says in verse 7, “Show us thy mercy, O LORD, and grant us thy salvation.”

Psalm 89 says in verse 1, “I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever.”

In Psalms 106, 107, 118, and twenty-six times in Psalm 136, we read that “his mercy endureth for ever.”  The reason God’s mercy endures forever is that the eternal God is essentially merciful. 

The prophet Habakkuk prayed for revival, and in his prayer he said, “In wrath remember mercy” (Habakkuk 3:2).  God always remembers mercy in times of His wrath.  Think of the covering coats He provided for Adam’s nakedness on the day of his fall and God’s curse.  Think of Noah’s ark at the time of God’s terrible judgement in the Flood.  God is always merciful, even when He is angry, and that is because He is unalterably merciful.

Have you noticed what God did when weak and wicked King Ahab repented?

 ”And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days:  but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house.” (I Kings 21:28-29)

 Even Ahab found God merciful, and he was the worst of the kings of Israel!  Can you remember who was the most wicked ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah?  It was Manasseh.  Have you heard that Manasseh found God’s mercy, too?

 ”And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, And prayed unto him: and he was entreated of him and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.  Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.” (II Chronicles 33:12-13)

The verses that followed these remarkable two tell us that the king experienced a full-scale revival in his own life and spent the rest of his days working to undo the harm he had done by his sins!  How could such a man have a revival?  The answer is in the fact that God is and will always be merciful and that His reviving work can be expected in response to our repentance.  Hear what God’s messengers have told us!

 “In the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them Saviors.” (Nehemiah 9:27)

 “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” (Isaiah 57:15).  “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.”    (James 4:10).

Yes, we can have forgiveness, help, and blessing from God in response to humble submission, steadfast faith, sincere repentance, and solemn commitment.  God is, and has always been, the Great Reviver of His people!

Certainly in our day we ought to seek personal, corporate, and general revival in the way the Israelites did in Jephthah’s time.  Pay attention to what characterized their quest for revival.

There Was Confession!

“And the children of Israel said unto the LORD, We have sinned:” (Judges 10:15a)

They harbored little hope for a response, but they nevertheless confessed their sins to God.  Can we expect a particular reaction from God when we sincerely confess our sins?

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)

God is “faithful” to forgive when we confess.  Forgiveness is not a sovereign act unrelated to our attitude, but the promised response to our confession, rooted in divine mercy.  These days, Christians who have lived their lives in love with the world and in neglect of their Father’s commands ought to make serious business of confessing their sins.  Godly men and women of the past have sought revival by writing out their sins and spending time confessing them.  Thoughtful reflection on our sins of omission as well as our habitual sins of commission will reveal clearly why we see so little of God’s blessing in our lives.  However, earnest confession of all these sins will certainly secure our God’s forgiveness.  And the God of Israel will revive us again!

There Was Submission!

“do thou unto us whatsoever seemeth good unto thee;” (Judges 10:15b)

The children of Israel were resigned to accept God’s will for them, no matter what it was.  Can we expect the Lord to do anything in particular when we yield to Him in this way? 

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world:  but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:1-2)

The admonition to surrender is attached to the promise that those who surrender all will “prove” the perfect will of God in their lives.  The Lord will set our steps on the right path when we submit our lives unconditionally to Him!  He wants us to fulfill His will, and He will see that we do when we become willing.  His mercy guarantees it.

There Was Prayer!

“Deliver us only, we pray thee, this day.” (Judges 10:15c)

When we ask “any thing according to his will,” the Apostle John told us “he heareth us” and “we have the petitions that we desired of him” (I John 5:14-15).  Men who pray for things that God says He wants for them can expect to receive the blessings they seek. 

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6). 

Do we want revival blessings?  Then we should ask for them.  Do we desire holiness?  Let us ask for it.  Do we hope to win others to Christ?  Let us pray that the Lord will grant these things.  It is in His nature to respond to such prayers.

There was Repentance!

“And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD,”  (Judges 10:16a)

God did not tell His people that if they got rid of their idols He would deliver them from the Ammonites.  He did not lead them to believe that if they served Him again, He would come to their aid.  They just did it anyway.  They repented of their sins, repaired their ways, and returned to the service of the true God because it was right to do so!

“and his soul was grieved…”

Their repentance brought his mercy, a response we should expect.

In his journal, Benjamin Franklin described what was happening in Philadelphia as a result of George Whitfield’s revival preaching.  “From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion it seem’d as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”2 

A general revival was prevailing in the city, and it was seen and heard in the changed lives of sinner and saint alike. Sometimes I think that if Christians began to act as if a general revival had come perhaps the Lord would send one!  Perhaps we should just change our ways and see what happens!  We could  gather our families nightly to sing the praises of the Lord.  We could  start praying as if we believed that God would revive us again.  We could give up the things in our lives that generate or fan the love of the world.  We could begin witnessing for Christ boldly and habitually.  We could have meetings to seek revival as in time of old.  Repentance turns the heart of God.  Certainly we ought to repent!  We can have the revival we need, as individual Christians, as servants of the Lord, and as congregations of believers.  God is the Great Reviver of His people and can be expected to respond to our repentance and prayer.  He is ever merciful and will hear our cry!

Dr. Rick Flanders, a pastor for 36 years, is now in a full time itinerant preaching ministry and the author of Back to Normal: Understanding Revival.  He is an expert on the history of religion and religious revivals in America and speaks optimistically about the possibility of a new revival era in the future.  For more information or to order materials contact via email at drrickflanders@gmail.com or sales@evangelpublishing.com

 

Notes

1 Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York:  Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), p. 14
2 Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (New York:  Washington Square Press, 1955), pp. 128-29

Dr. Flander’s book can be purchased at Amazon.